I think the mistake this judge made is inferring copying because the summaries are similar. Access plus similarity equals copying. But similarity is inevitable whenever multiple parties are summarizing the same content. The shorter the summary, the more similar it will be to other summaries (as long as they are all accurate). I don't think this is the kind of thing the Copyright Act was trying to protect against. If you call this infringement, you basically give preference to the first summarizer, which tends toward giving them a monopoly on that content.

Profits would be passed along to the people who own Amazon (shareholders), and those shareholders would pay income tax on those profits with their personal taxes. Why is it a good idea to tax profits twice, once with the corporation, and once with the shareholder? I could maybe see the value of taxing corporations that hold on to profits for a long time, and never return those profits to shareholders. But not otherwise.

would involve ME selling advertisers MY OWN attention, rather than everyone else selling it for me. I would happily give you a personal profile, and you can send me targeted ads that I would actually be interested in. I will willingly view those ads. In exchange, pay me directly by, say, giving me cable TV for free, or give me free movie rentals. How much would the attention of my whole family be worth? Do we really need middle-men for this any more?

If I was the boss and you said this to me, I would fix the licenses and THEN fire you.

The rule of thumb I use: After you cram each wire into the connector, if you can't see light glint off the cut end of each wire when looking through the end of the connector, they aren't in right. Looking at the sides or the top or bottom of the connector won't do.